IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
Hakim – Appellant
Versus
Hurmat & Ors. – Respondents
CRM-A-2320-Ma-2018 (O&M)
Decided On : 18-01-2023
ACQUITTAL - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 148, 149, 323, 326, 452, 307, 506 - The court discussed the legal provisions and principles related to appeals against acquittals, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for substantial and compelling reasons to interfere with an order of acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
An altercation took place between the complainant's children and the accused. The accused trespassed into the complainant's house and assaulted the complainant and his family. The accused were acquitted by the Trial Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court's acquittal was based on the delay in filing the complaint, contradictions in the evidence, and lack of evidence to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues: The issues included the delay in filing the complaint, contradictions in the evidence, and the sufficiency of evidence to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the presumption of innocence, the need for substantial and compelling reasons to interfere with an order of acquittal, and the requirement to consider all relevant evidence and reasons given by the Trial Court.
Final Decision: The application for the grant of leave to appeal was dismissed, as the Trial Court's acquittal was based on a reasonable view of the evidence and was not considered to be perverse.
JUDGMENT
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. - The applicant/appellant has filed the present application for grant of leave to appeal against the order of acquittal dated 10.01.2018 passed by Sub Judicial Magistrate, Hathin, whereby the accused-respondents have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 148, 149, 323, 326, 452, 307, 506 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.02.2008, an altercation took place on account of some controversy between their children and the applicant-appellant/complainant (hereinafter known as the complainant) protested to Hurmat. On this, Hurmat got infuriated, started to hurl abuses at him and threatened to teach him a lesson. When the complainant returned to his house, then on the same day at around 10:00 AM while he was at home, all the accused came there being armed with Pharsas, Lathis and Paltas, trespassed into his house and raised a lalkara to finish them. Jakir gave a pharsa blow on the head of the complainant. The accused Kala gave a lathi blow on the elbow of his left hand. When Juber, brother of the complainant tried to protect him, then Hurmat caught hold of Juber and Sheru gave a lathi blow on his right shoulder. Siraj gave a lathi blow on his left arm, Manna gave a lathi blow on the right hand of Juber. When Jaibuna wife of Juber tried to rescue them, Lilli gave an iron palta blow on the head of Jaibuna and she fell unconscious. On raising an alarm, Babuddin and Fajar co-residents reached there and rescued them from the clutches of the accused.
3. Vide order dated 08.09.2016 the accused were summoned under Sections 148, 323, 452, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. Thereafter, pre-charge evidence was led by the complainant and the accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 148, 323, 452, 506 read with Section 149 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
5. To prove its case, complainant examined himself as CW1 and in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 14.02.2008 some altercation took place between their children and the children of Hurmat. When he went to the house of Hurmat, then Hurmat started abusing them. At 10:00 AM when he, Juber and Jaibuna were present at home, in the meanwhile all accused persons namely Jafar, Hurmat, Kala, Sheru, Manna, Siraj and Lilli forcibly entered in their house and gave a lalkara to punish them. Jakir gave a farsa blow on his head. Kaley gave a lathi on his right elbow. In the meanwhile his brother came to rescue them and Hurmat caught him from behind. Sheru gave a lathi blow on the right hand of Juber. Manna gave a lathi blow on the right hand and to save them his sister-in-law Lilli came there. She was hit by a sharp iron weapon on her head due to which she received injuries on her head and she became unconscious. In the meanwhile Babuddin and Fajar came and rescued them. They had been taken to Mandi Kheda and their sister-in-law was taken to Kosi to a private hospital. After 4/5 months of the injuries their sister-in-law died in Kosi Kalan Hospital. He proved his complaint Ex.C1.
CW2 Dr. Satish Arora, B.A.M.S. Hari Milap Hospital, Kosi Kalan, District Mahtura (UP) deposed that he had seen the name of the complainant on the file but he had not treated them nor treated Jaibuna wife of Juber and he did not know Juber and he did not have any record of them.
CW3 Babuddin son of Mallu Khan deposed that on 14.02.2008 they were going on the way. There was noise due to the quarrel of Hakim and Hurmat. They saw that Hakim, Juber, Jaibuna, Ali Mohammad were laid on the floor and they were unconscious and they also saw that Jakir was having a farsa and Leelay was having an iron palta. Manna, Lilli, Karu, Kaley were having lathis. Hurmat while going away had threatened that this time they had been saved but not next time. Thereafter, they went to Police Post Uttawar where three persons of the accused party were found who had not let the report be lodged. Thereafter, they took Jaibuna to Government Hospital. The doctor had given an MLR to the
Surajpal Singh vs. The State 1952-3 SCR 193 at p.201 AIR 1952 SC 52
Tulsiram Kanu vs. State AIR 1954 SC 1
Vijay Mohan Singh vs. State of Karnataka
Wilayat Khan vs. State of U.P. AIR 1953 SC 122)
Shailendra Pratap vs. State of U.P (2003) 1 SCC 761
Shambhoo Missir vs. State of Bihar (1990) 4 SCC 17
Sheo Swarup vs. The, King Emperor
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra (1973 (2) SCC 793)
State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755)
State of Punjab vs. Karnail Singh (2003 (11) SCC 271)
State of Punjab vs. Phola Singh (2003 (11) SCC 58)
State of Rajasthan vs. Naresh (2009) 9 SCC 368
State of Rajasthan Versus Mohan Lal
State of U.P. vs. Banne (2009) 4 SCC 271
State of U.P. vs. Ram Veer Singh (2007) 13 SCC 102
Surajpal Singh vs. State AIR 1952 SC 52
Ajmer Singh vs. State of Punjab
Aruvelu vs. State (2009) 10 SCC 206
Atley vs. State of U.P. AIR 1955 SC 807
Balak Ram vs. State of U.P (1975) 3 SCC 219
Balbir Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 216
Bhagwan Singh vs. State of M.P(2002) 4 SCC 85
Bhagwan Singh vs. State of M.P
Bhim Singh Rup Singh vs. State of Maharashtra (1974(3) SCC 762)
Budh Singh vs. State of U.P (2006) 9 SCC 731
C. Antony Versus K.G. Raghavan Nair
Chandrappa and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka
Dhanpal vs. State (2009) 10 SCC 401
Dharamdeo Singh & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar (1976(1) SCC 610)
Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao vs. State of A.P.(2009) 10 SCC 636)
Gaya Din vs. Hanuman Prasad (2001) 1 SCC 501
Ghurey Lal vs. State of U.P (2008) 10 SCC 450
Harbans Singh vs. The State of Punjab
Jaswant Singh vs. State of Haryana (2000 (4) SCC 484)
K. Ramakrishnan Unnithan vs. State of Karala (1999) 3 SCC 309
K.Gopal Reddy vs. State of A.P. (1979) 1 SCC 355
Karan Anand Versus Kamal Bakshi
Khedu Mohton vs. State of Bihar (1970) 2 SCC 450
Kuldeep Singh vs. Commissioner of Police (1999) 2 SCC 10
Lunaram Versus Bhupat Singh & others
M.G. Aggarwal Versus State of Maharashtra
Nagbhushan vs. State of Karnataka
Narendra Singh vs. State of M.P (2004) 10 SCC 699
Nur Mohammad vs. Emperor AIR 1945 PC 151
Perla Somasekhara Reddy vs. State of A.P (2009) 16 SCC 98
Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar (2003 (11) SCC 519)
Rajinder Kumar Kindra vs. Delhi Admn (1984) 4 SCC 635
Ram Singh vs. State of H.P (2010) 2 SCC 445)
Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs. State of Gujarat (1996 (9) SCC 225)
Rekha Versus State of Haryana & another
S. Rama vs. Rami Reddy (2008) 5 SCC 535
Sachchey Lal Tiwari vs. State of U.P. (2004 (11) SCC 410)
It is settled law that if main grounds on which lower Court has based its order acquitting accused are reasonable and plausible, and same cannot be entirely and effectively be dislodged or demolished....
Point of law : It is true that the High Court would not reverse an order of acquittal merely on formation of an opinion different than that of the trial Court. It is also trite in law that the High C....
Point of Law : It is cardinal principle of criminal justice system that when there is satisfactory explanation for non-examination of independent witnesses, conviction can be based solely on the test....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.